Originally posted by Caat What are the advantages of not having an internal flash?
- Teeny weeny size and weight saving?
Won't make much of a difference indeed, but could make the design of the top of the body a lot easier, since making an internal flash that sticks out high enough to avoid red eyes as much as possible means making the top relatively long.
Originally posted by Caat Versus the advantages
- Having a flash with you all the time (even if it isn't as powerful as an external unit its still more powerful than no flash at all!)
It is practical to have a fill-in flash without extra carrying, but not as conventient as you may suggest. I only use it as a fill-in in combination with my primes, as I'm only sure with those lenses that the flash won't be blocked by the hood of the lens. My other frequently used lenses (the DA* zooms) are not compatible.
Originally posted by Caat - For controlling flashes wirelessly
Indeed, but the optical triggering system is far from perfect. Often I find the built-in flash not powerful enough for the remote flashes to pick up its signal. I have abandoned using it altogether and rely on a Cactus trigger for all remote flash work now. That requires a full manual setup, but this is needed anyway in most cases.
Originally posted by Caat Why would Pentax not include a flash? Cost saving? Surely this offset by the fact that many people won't by a camera without an onboard flash.
I guess since Pentax were the first to make a SLR with a built-in flash (the SFX) they have the right to remove it again?
But I guess they won't. I'm counting on an internal flash.
Wim